|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 63 post(s) |
Slate Shoa
   |
Posted - 2011.02.17 05:07:00 -
[1]
Ummm... Others have said it before. This is a quick and easy solution.
######
# # ###### # ## # # ###### #####
# # # # # # # # # # #
# # ##### # # # # ##### # #
# # # # ###### # # # #
# # # # # # # # # #
###### ###### ###### # # # ###### #####
#
# #### #### ## #
# # # # # # # #
# # # # # # #
# # # # ###### #
# # # # # # # #
####### #### #### # # ######
Seriously though, even if local was delayed for as little as one minute, this would have drastic impacts on botters.
--------[Signature]--------
If at first you don't succeed... you're obviously not Chuck Norris. |
Slate Shoa
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 23:18:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Yana Cova
Edited by: Yana Cova on 18/02/2011 21:41:27
To be honest we should make this as public as possible - most folks probably dont even erad the forums but would care ALOT about this topic - so we should spam this thread in local where ever we are - if the player base gets properly motivated we might see some meaningful reaction (as long as it harms no dolphins or orphans ofc)
Therefore I call all readers/posters to promote this issue in local where ever they are to educate the masses - let them work out for themselves if they care or not....
*snip*
I agree. I'll do this next time I'm on.
Also, DELAYED LOCAL will fix the botting issue for a majority of cases....
--------[Signature]--------
If at first you don't succeed... you're obviously not Chuck Norris. |
Slate Shoa
|
Posted - 2011.03.07 23:17:00 -
[3]
Someone should go through this entire topic, post by post, and summarize all the constructive comments in one giant post. Not me!
Bump
|
Slate Shoa
|
Posted - 2011.03.23 13:41:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Slate Shoa on 23/03/2011 13:42:39
My subscription interval is approaching. All I can say is:
How significant CCP's announcement is, with regards to what they are doing about the hacking/botting issue, is going to be a huge factor in whether or not I resubscribe. If it turns out to be nothing, I will not resubscribe; I'd rather play Aces High II or something with the money.
and no, you cannot has my stuff.
|
Slate Shoa
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 15:55:00 -
[5]
Questions:
1) What is CCP going to do to make sure player reports/petitions of bots are:
a) not abused?
b) acted upon (unlike in the past)?
2) What is CCP going to do to continually prove to the playerbase that bans for botting are:
a) occurring at a significant rate (ex: not one botter per day)?
b) severe enough to be a significant deterrence (ex: not one day bans)?
My take on the subject:
Any feature to report bots is meaningless unless CCP can prove that they are continuously acting upon player reports of bots. Playerbase confidence in CCP's willingness to act on player reports must be restored. The bans must also be significant in penalty and rate of occurrence.
|
Slate Shoa
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 18:02:00 -
[6]
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Originally by: Slate Shoa
Questions:
1) What is CCP going to do to make sure player reports/petitions of bots are:
a) not abused?
b) acted upon (unlike in the past)?
2) What is CCP going to do to continually prove to the playerbase that bans for botting are:
a) occurring at a significant rate (ex: not one botter per day)?
b) severe enough to be a significant deterrence (ex: not one day bans)?
My take on the subject:
Any feature to report bots is meaningless unless CCP can prove that they are continuously acting upon player reports of bots. Playerbase confidence in CCP's willingness to act on player reports must be restored. The bans must also be significant in penalty and rate of occurrence.
The presentation addresses this specifically.
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
The presentation will be available on Youtube in the next day or so and a Devblog will be published shortly thereafter.
Thanks for the reply Sreegs. I'm looking forward to the video and Devblog.
|
Slate Shoa
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 03:16:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Minarete
I am going to be very very interested to see how this all pans out against the economy etc.
I am one of the maniac fools that mines too much, and I cant see other "Miners" picking up the slack of mineral stock pile depletion even if the price doubles or triples, it is just too *F*ing boring, and I do it while I am working at home.
My main purpose for mining, is to supply for my own T2 Production, which does not require a whole lot of T1 minerals. I do not sell that much, and actually buy more than I mine myself.
I do mine about 4-6 times more Ice than my own PoS requires, and sell the excess, only again, because it is easy, but also boring as *F*, the price of that doubling, would not in anyway make me rich.
EVE's economy is built on the assumption that botting would be permitted (as it has implicitly been in the past). I think because of that fact, EVE's economy is going to need some serious reconstruction. Regardless, botting and using botting as a crutch for the economy, when it is explicitly against the EULA, is absolutely unacceptable.
I would rather see a lottery where players are randomly given resources than see the continued implicit approval/crutch of botting. At least that would even the playing field for those who adhere to the EULA. That's a horrible idea, I know, but it illustrates how much I would like to see bots disappear from EVE.
To reduce shock, iteratively:
1) Burn away a significant portion of bots.
2) Damage control on EVE economy.
|
Slate Shoa
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 15:56:00 -
[8]
I haven't had time to watch the whole thing, but I think this is the presentation:
EVE Fanfest 2011 Security Presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4gZm-85JOs
Keep this link on each new page in this forum if this is the promised youtube video...
|
Slate Shoa
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 17:57:00 -
[9]
Quote:
EVE Fanfest 2011 Security Presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4gZm-85JOs
From the presentation, it looks like CCP is streamlining the bot reporting process and coming up with ways to avoid having to make judgment calls for each bot report. This streamlining is good.
I would still like to hear what is being done to continually prove that bot reports are being acted upon. In the presentation CCP Sreegs was commenting about how the old bot reporting system has a bad (no) feedback system. It seemed that Sreegs was going to comment on how the new bot reporting system feedback would be changed, but then it looked like Sreegs forgot to talk about it (assuming there was something planned).
Are the players who report bots going to be notified if their reports successfully catch a botter? Is there going to be a Wall-of-Shame (or equivalent)?
If some privacy agreement is preventing CCP from disclosing the result of a bot report, then that privacy agreement needs to be changed. CCP needs to be visible in its handling of botters and continually prove to the playerbase that botters are being delt with; lack of visibility will lead to additional (and justified) anti-botter rage.
I will wait for the Devblog to be published to see if my concerns are addressed there.
|
Slate Shoa
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 16:21:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Xylengra
Originally by: Chesty McJubblies
Yes, they removed up to 1000 accounts.
Prove that statement.
I believe the number 1000 comes from the EVE Fanfest Security Presentation, where I think Sreegs was talking about the difference between the new slow burn tactic versus the unholy rage tactic. Sreegs said something to the effect of: 'The number of accounts banned is less than 1000.' So the number 1000 is an upper limit, not an exact figure. That isn't an exact quote btw, and I don't know where exactly in the presentation he says it.
On a different note:
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Originally by: Slate Shoa
Questions:
**SNIP** (question was answered)
2) What is CCP going to do to continually prove to the playerbase that bans for botting are:
a) occurring at a significant rate (ex: not one botter per day)?
b) severe enough to be a significant deterrence (ex: not one day bans)?
My take on the subject:
Any feature to report bots is meaningless unless CCP can prove that they are continuously acting upon player reports of bots. Playerbase confidence in CCP's willingness to act on player reports must be restored. The bans must also be significant in penalty and rate of occurrence.
The presentation addresses this specifically.
and
Originally by: Slate Shoa
Quote:
EVE Fanfest 2011 Security Presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4gZm-85JOs
From the presentation, it looks like CCP is streamlining the bot reporting process and coming up with ways to avoid having to make judgment calls for each bot report. This streamlining is good.
I would still like to hear what is being done to continually prove that bot reports are being acted upon. In the presentation CCP Sreegs was commenting about how the old bot reporting system has a bad (no) feedback system. It seemed that Sreegs was going to comment on how the new bot reporting system feedback would be changed, but then it looked like Sreegs forgot to talk about it (assuming there was something planned).
Are the players who report bots going to be notified if their reports successfully catch a botter? Is there going to be a Wall-of-Shame (or equivalent)?
If some privacy agreement is preventing CCP from disclosing the result of a bot report, then that privacy agreement needs to be changed. CCP needs to be visible in its handling of botters and continually prove to the playerbase that botters are being delt with; lack of visibility will lead to additional (and justified) anti-botter rage.
I will wait for the Devblog to be published to see if my concerns are addressed there.
I am still waiting on the Devblog...
|
|
|
Slate Shoa
|
Posted - 2011.04.03 22:25:00 -
[11]
A long time ago, I advocated making null-sec local like w-space local as a way to make it more difficult for botters (side effect: and consequently real players too) to thrive in null-sec. Someone then made me aware that it was possible to sniff the network traffic to see if someone is in local, regardless of what is displayed to the player. That threw a wrench into the idea of changing null-sec local...
From the security presentation it seemed like there is a desire by the security team to detect players sniffing the network traffic, and punish accordingly. Assuming that the security team is able to detect sniffing traffic, does this mean that nerfing null-sec local is now a viable option?
Yes there's d-scan, but that's only scans to ~14 au (I think).
Opinions anyone?
|
Slate Shoa
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 17:58:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Slate Shoa
Edited by: Slate Shoa on 02/04/2011 17:26:37 Originally by: CCP Sreegs, post #1907
Originally by: Slate Shoa
Questions:
**SNIP** (question was answered)
2) What is CCP going to do to continually prove to the playerbase that bans for botting are:
a) occurring at a significant rate (ex: not one botter per day)?
b) severe enough to be a significant deterrence (ex: not one day bans)?
My take on the subject:
Any feature to report bots is meaningless unless CCP can prove that they are continuously acting upon player reports of bots. Playerbase confidence in CCP's willingness to act on player reports must be restored. The bans must also be significant in penalty and rate of occurrence.
The presentation addresses this specifically.
and
Originally by: Slate Shoa, post #1987
Quote:
EVE Fanfest 2011 Security Presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4gZm-85JOs
From the presentation, it looks like CCP is streamlining the bot reporting process and coming up with ways to avoid having to make judgment calls for each bot report. This streamlining is good.
I would still like to hear what is being done to continually prove that bot reports are being acted upon. In the presentation CCP Sreegs was commenting about how the old bot reporting system has a bad (no) feedback system. It seemed that Sreegs was going to comment on how the new bot reporting system feedback would be changed, but then it looked like Sreegs forgot to talk about it (assuming there was something planned).
Are the players who report bots going to be notified if their reports successfully catch a botter? Is there going to be a Wall-of-Shame (or equivalent)?
If some privacy agreement is preventing CCP from disclosing the result of a bot report, then that privacy agreement needs to be changed. CCP needs to be visible in its handling of botters and continually prove to the playerbase that botters are being delt with; lack of visibility will lead to additional (and justified) anti-botter rage.
I will wait for the Devblog to be published to see if my concerns are addressed there.
I am still waiting on the Devblog...
Confirming that I am still waiting on the Devblog...
I'm hoping it will address the topics:
1) Improving the feedback from CCP received by players who report bots, and
2) How CCP is going to prove regularly that CCP is taking action against botters.
(I understand that the forum issues have taken more of Sreegs' attention, which is reasonable.)
|
Slate Shoa
|
Posted - 2011.05.24 18:17:00 -
[13]
I hope the live dev blog will be supplemented by an actual dev blog post, and that the audio of the live dev blog will be made available for download at a later time.
I also hope the content of the live dev blog addresses many things that have been asked in this topic numerous times.
|
Slate Shoa
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 17:49:00 -
[14]
Is there a link to download a recording of the live dev blog yet?
|
Slate Shoa
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 23:55:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Slate Shoa
Is there a link to download a recording of the live dev blog yet?
Found the link in some other thread...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y311KSwESss
|
Slate Shoa
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 20:49:00 -
[16]
sooo... how 'bout that dev blog?
Feel free to take your time CCP. Oh wait... 
|
|
|
| |
|